Joss Whedon's S.H.I.E.L.D to ABC!

I wouldn't say Gravitron is "their" Magneto. They're most likely doing what "Arrow" has done and will use the series to push lesser known characters into the mainstream.

As for when Namor went to Universal...Fiege is the one who stated this, and I would guess sometime between "Iron Man 2" since Atlantis was shown as one of hot spots on Fury's monitor and now. I would assume the rights situation works the same way with Marvel Studios as it does with any other studio, they have to be actively developing a film with the character or else they become available. This kind of came out of nowhere.

Why would Marvel Studios have to be developing a character to preserve it? Aren't they the ones who own it by default? Granted, if they're not developing a character, it makes sense to lease it to get some money, but I don't think they're required to use a character.

Why would Marvel Studios have to be developing a character to preserve it? Aren't they the ones who own it by default?

Click to expand...

That's right. It's the other studios, the ones who acquire licenses to the characters, who eventually lose those licenses if they don't use them. That's to keep other studios from acquiring a property and sitting on it just to keep the rightful owner from using it. Unless they actually use the character or concept, eventually the rights revert to the owner.

Now, trademarks tends to lapse if they aren't actively used. That's how Fawcett's trademark on the name "Captain Marvel" lapsed, allowing Marvel to snatch it up for a new character. But that's different from losing the rights to the actual character, as opposed to just the name. DC needed to acquire a license in order to use the original Captain Marvel/Billy Batson character. Names, titles, and logos are trademarked, while characters and concepts are copyrighted.

So if, say, Marvel went a couple of decades without using the Sub-Mariner, the trademark on the name could lapse and another company could theoretically create their own character named Sub-Mariner. But it wouldn't be Prince Namor, the mutant king of Atlantis. Only the name would become public domain.

Why would Marvel Studios have to be developing a character to preserve it? Aren't they the ones who own it by default?

Click to expand...

That's right. It's the other studios, the ones who acquire licenses to the characters, who eventually lose those licenses if they don't use them. That's to keep other studios from acquiring a property and sitting on it just to keep the rightful owner from using it. Unless they actually use the character or concept, eventually the rights revert to the owner.

Now, trademarks tends to lapse if they aren't actively used. That's how Fawcett's trademark on the name "Captain Marvel" lapsed, allowing Marvel to snatch it up for a new character. But that's different from losing the rights to the actual character, as opposed to just the name. DC needed to acquire a license in order to use the original Captain Marvel/Billy Batson character. Names, titles, and logos are trademarked, while characters and concepts are copyrighted.

So if, say, Marvel went a couple of decades without using the Sub-Mariner, the trademark on the name could lapse and another company could theoretically create their own character named Sub-Mariner. But it wouldn't be Prince Namor, the mutant king of Atlantis. Only the name would become public domain.

Click to expand...

I was sort of thinking about this the other day. Namor doesn't seem to be referred to as "The Sub-Mariner" very often these days. Looking at the dramatis personae page in both New Avengers and Infinty, he's just called Namor. Even Reed Richards is called by his little used code name there, but not Subby.

I did say that I assume...I guess then they just got money from Universal. Namor did revert back to them though from somewhere else before which is why we saw Atlantis on the status screen. This still came out of nowhere since most fans assumed that we would see a Marvel Studios "Namor" film at some point.

There's no reason to assume that an easter egg such as inclusion on Fury's monitor means that Marvel had the rights to the character at that time. It seems more likely that Universal has had the rights consistently to present.

Here is a new preview with scenes from more episodes than just the pilot. Possible evidence of Graviton briefly at 1:09 and the first footage of the red masked guys seen in Stockholm.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wcDvNSTBws[/YT]

I've read that some folks on-line seem to think the red mask guys are U.L.T.I.M.A.T.U.M., but I've read nothing official to confirm that and they look nothing like the U.L.T.I.M.A.T.U.M. that I remember from the comics, so I'm not sure what they're basing that on.